Time to move on the Rocky Mountain Front

The Rocky Mountain Front is one of the most wildlife rich, relatively undeveloped and beautiful working landscapes in the "Lower 48."

It is truly a sportsman's paradise. With the exception of bison, it supports thriving wild populations of all the large mammals that lived there at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Its wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities have endured since then, and it's high time that there is greater assurance that it remains this way for future generations.

I recently attended a listening session in Choteau that was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve Daines. The purpose of the session was to receive public input on Sen. Max Baucus' Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.

Although people spoke with conviction and passion on both sides of the proposed legislation, it was clear to me that, regardless of the position held, everyone believes the Front is a very special place.

Proponents of the act spoke highly of the wildlife, wildness, recreation and water values of the Front, as well as the economic benefits of ranching and recreation. Although opponents acknowledged these values, they focused heavily on broad themes. They included a sentiment that there's too much wilderness; too many limitations on motorized recreation; distaste for government control and a view that the compromise was developed by someone other than themselves.

I'd like to respond to some of these views. Although the concerns are real, not only can they be addressed, but the act makes vast improvements in resolving them. I base my opinion on a 37-year career with the U. S. Forest Service and listening to these arguments in different locations and circumstances.

Some of the major criticisms that I heard regarding wildland natural resource planning were: (1) we need an additional management strategy that is something that approaches classified wilderness, but that permits some level of motorized use; (2) we need management alternatives created not by federal bureaucrats, but developed by local citizens, and (3) we need to give greater consideration to adjacent private lands.

The act addresses all these concerns. First, it includes three modest additions to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex that will not make changes to the status quo. For the most part, these areas have already been proposed for wilderness designation and have been managed for their wilderness values by the Forest Service for decades. Management of these lands will not change because of new wilderness designation.

Second, the act would create Conservation Management Areas that will be managed for recreation and backcountry values, while permitting motorized use on existing roads and trails. This strategy permits ranchers to use motorized equipment to help manage their livestock on public lands and allows mechanized equipment to be used for needed invasive weed control.

Third, management strategies identified in the act were created locally by a diverse coalition of folks who addressed the competing issues through collaboration and compromise.

The act does not give everyone everything they want. However, it establishes direction that, quoting the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, will: "provide the greatest good, for the greatest number, over the long run." The Front is a natural treasure of local, state and national significance and management strategies found in the RMFHA will help ensure that robust wildlife populations, world-class recreation and traditional land uses remain for future generations.

I want to thank Congressman Daines for hosting this open house. It was a great opportunity to gain perspectives, insights and public perception on a legislative proposal that is long overdue.

I hope that Congressman Daines will continue to assess the merits of Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act and eventually support its passage.

It's high time to give more formal protection to this very special place, the Rocky Mountain Front.